Or use your own AI judge agent to filter out the submissions that clearly don't align with the intention of the list.

Or do you mean just grep for “TEMPLATE-1.3” and if it’s not there, reject?

It's not quite as simple as "check for one line," but it's not hard to have a useful check that costs far fewer resources to run than an agent would.

Maybe someone who has a lot of free time and high enthusiasm for AI might consider this to be worth chasing after, but anyone who has dealt with these whack-a-mole scenarios is going to admit the easiest thing to do is just not maintain the resource anymore. There are less-draining projects and endeavors to turn towards instead.

It is like a naive and prodigious intern with incredible intelligence and factual knowledge, but no sense of how the world works or what will actually fly with human stakeholders.

(suggestions to expand it will be made in a dedicated PR /s)

Great to read that there are still people out there sifting through the noise of Agents shooting PRs in all directions.

Keep up the great work, it's appreciated!

https://collusion.wiki/#the-agents-realize-the-site-owner-is...

If it can’t follow a simple checklist, it shouldn’t be a problem, because you don’t even see the PR, because it should be auto-closed.

> How on earth a 6h old repository with zero user is considered "awesome"

It’s not, and you can write a bot that auto-closes such PRs (and any PR from an obviously AI account, and I wish pangram was cheaper, but any PR that is obviously AI text).

Ok, repo age being one of hundreds of red flags. Each of these can be auto-detected. But each auto-detection rule will be known and can be gamed afterwards.

Someone might grab an old repository and just keep force-pushing new content and thus repurposing it, but if you can find a quick check against that (probably a log somewhere), I think it has a fairly good chance of weeding out the noise.

There's also some form of outcome bias here. You're judging the resource/repository/library/whatever from today's learnings and standards, but it took this amount of time to reach here, maybe do-over multiple times, 100s or 1000s of commits and clearly none of these were there when it was only 6h old.

“Must have six months of active development” beats every slop I’ve seen yet (and we’ll see in six months, but vibe coding has already existed for longer). “Must appear in a popular app (by my judgement), be vouched by someone I trust, or exist before 2024” would probably accept most legitimate “awesome” repos.

For similar reasons, I started paying for professional book reviews again a few years ago. There are too many books being published nowadays for me to really be able to keep up for myself. And the opinions you get on places like Goodreads and BookTok are almost by definition low effort. with professional reviews, there’s a higher chance that the reviewer took their time with it and has decent media literacy skills. And I spent less time and money on books I don’t actually finish.

Now, good resources can turn into bad resources much more quickly, so maintenance + keeping track probably requires a lot more effort.

PRs are not a great way to maintain it, need a front end that requires a human-shaped effort, email and CATCHA, although agents will figure it out.

But then the back end can be automated to some extent, automate getting a signal as to whether someone put serious effort into it, whether it has any traction.

At the end of the day the whole point is knowledgable human curating the list, so it will be hard if it's a fast-moving topic. And that is what makes it useful.

Anyway wikipedia still seems to work but it takes a well-motivated, well-tooled army. Maybe we need that, some kind of updated wikipedia for tech updated by SMEs.